From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dm-devel <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: rdac priority checker changing priorities
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 12:43:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49FEC6E6.6070105@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241114743.11905.13.camel@chandra-ubuntu>
Hi Chandra,
Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hannes,
>
> I think we need to revisit the priority value we provide for preferred
> path(4) relative to active path (2) and non-preferred(1).
>
> Consider the following scenario:
>
> Access to a lun thru 2 preferred and 2 non-preferred path. Lets call
> path group with preferred paths as pg1 and with non-preferred paths as
> pg2.
>
> Initially pg1 has priority of 8 and pg2 has priority of 2. pg1 is chosen
> and I/O goes thru pg1, all good.
>
> Both the paths in pg1 fails, pg2 has been made the active path group and
> I/O is sent thru that path and since it became "active", its priority
> raises to 6 ( 2 path times (active + non-preferred)).
>
> When one of the paths in pg1 comes back, one would expect the failback
> to happen. It doesn't happen as pg1's priority (4) is smaller than that
> of pg2 (6). Which is not correct.
>
Is this really a valid case?
This means we'll have a setup like this:
rdac
pg1
sda failed
sdb failed
pg2
sdc active
sdd active
Correct?
So, given your assumptions, the proposed scenario would be represented
like this:
rdac
pg1
sda active
sdb failed
pg2
sdc active
sdd active
So it is really a good idea to switch paths in this case? The 'sdb'
path would not be reachable here, so any path switch command wouldn't
have been received, either. I'm not sure _what_ is going to happen
when we switch paths now and sdb comes back later; but most likely
the entire setup will be messed up then:
sda (pref & owned) 6
sdb 0
sdc (sec) 1
sdd (sec & owned) 3
and we'll be getting the path layout thoroughly jumbled then.
So I don't really like this idea. We should only be switching
paths when _all_ paths of a path group become available again.
Providing not all paths have failed in the active group, of course.
Then we should be switching paths regardless.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-04 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-29 22:34 rdac priority checker changing priorities Lucas Brasilino
2009-04-30 6:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2009-04-30 18:05 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-05-04 10:43 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2009-05-04 17:30 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-06-23 0:47 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-06-23 6:20 ` Hannes Reinecke
2009-05-05 17:59 ` Lucas Brasilino
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49FEC6E6.6070105@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.